• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Police are trained to be observant even under stress.

Why would you imagine an umble hengineer is more reliable than a police officer as a witness? 29 survivors all provided the same sequence of events. The junior trainee boatswain, Silver Linde was the JAIC star witness, changed his story more times than Jackanory, and was later jailed nine years for drug smuggling (which indicates he wasn't just selling weed on a street corner). So I think I prefer the testimony of random independent members of the public just going about their every day affairs with zero reason to tell porkie pies.

One crew member said the crew were threatened with dismissal if they uttered anything that could damage the reputation of the ferry line.
Click to expand...

What training do police officers have in being observant under stress?

Why wouldn't a ships engineer be any less reliable than a police officer passenger?
A ships engineer will have far more experience with how ships behave and more direct experience with the flooding and progress of the sinking just by being in the machinery space and experiencing the flooding first hand.

What is your evidence that the crew were threatened by the ferry company?
 
Axxman300 said:
First off, you have just stated the bow-cover failing was the cause of the sinking, which is what happens when you paint yourself into a corner and then solve the problem with more paint.

Second, the ship builder backed the "documentary" team's expedition to survey the wreck. Why? Because in 2019 they found themselves back in court:

https://www.nautilusint.org/en/news-insight/news/estonia-shipwreck-disaster-in-court-after-25-years/



The claim was later rejected by the French Court:

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2019/07/22/533478.htm



The bold print underlines a wonderfully French-legal way of saying it was a crappy design, but the ship-builder and the subcontractor were too dumb to notice.



It wasn't the "German Group", it was Meyer Werft. Be specific. Germany has a scary intelligence service, if Sweden was hiding the truth behind the sinking Germany would know. The new investigation should not be seen as impartial. That hole on the side is along the seam, half the metal dented outward and the other half inward suggesting a stress fracture. Again, the documentary details how the Estonia has shifted its bottom list further to port, meaning the hole, if it was there, would not have been visible in mid-1990s.

As for the "Journalist", Jutta Rabe has lost any credibility she had over her obsession with the Estonia.



If you are referring to the MS Zenobia you have failed. She had a pump-software failure. Her bow-cover is still right where it belongs on the front of the ship:rolleyes:.

Fun fact: Nobody died on the MS Zenobia, and it is one of the top-10 dive sites in the world. So much so it even has its own Facebook page.

MS Zenobia sank in calm water, not in a raging storm. Other than it was a Ro-Ro ferry a year older than Estonia it was nothing like the German-made ferry.

Please try to focus.
Click to expand...

Also, where was the hull breach on Zenobia. Because it's "simple physics" that a ship can't sink unless its hull is breached, after all.
 
Vixen said:
I've done enough case studies of different industries to know that the bottom line is you cover your expenses.
Click to expand...

How would 40k cover the expenses of a DSV for more than a couple of days?

What about the costs of the other support ships that would be needed?

40k would hardly cover a days basic costs of just a DSV and maybe one support vessel.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Also, where was the hull breach on Zenobia. Because it's "simple physics" that a ship can't sink unless its hull is breached, after all.
Click to expand...

A lot of ship sinkings that aren't attributed to groundings or weather are through flooding caused by failed through hull fittings.

A quick scan through a list of the two hundred or so sinkings a year will show that flooding is the cause. Most of them don't capsize, they just settle in the water.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
How would 40k cover the expenses of a DSV for more than a couple of days?

What about the costs of the other support ships that would be needed?

40k would hardly cover a days basic costs of just a DSV and maybe one support vessel.
Click to expand...


And if Vixen labours under the delusion that the 25-40 people manning such a vessel - pretty much all of whom would be indispensable to the ability to conduct operations - would all be willing to work for up to a month for free..... then, well, I guess I have no words.


(Oh, and not to mention the fact that it's far from unlikely that any DSV notionally engaged to work on the Estonia wreck would have to travel a couple of thousand miles from its previous engagement, with all of the time and expenses involved in doing so)
 
LondonJohn said:
And if Vixen labours under the delusion that the 25-40 people manning such a vessel - pretty much all of whom would be indispensable to the ability to conduct operations - would all be willing to work for up to a month for free..... then, well, I guess I have no words.


(Oh, and not to mention the fact that it's far from unlikely that any DSV notionally engaged to work on the Estonia wreck would have to travel a couple of thousand miles from its previous engagement, with all of the time and expenses involved in doing so)
Click to expand...

There are a number operating in the North Sea but for a long job like a ship recovery a proper charter would be needed.
 
Vixen said:
He is an investigative journalist who was a small boy when the accident happened. He just became interested in getting to the truth of the matter. Like a good journalist should.
Click to expand...

I have been in several documentaries, and I routinely hang out with the documentarians at the Sundance Film Festival and I have yet to meet a single documentarian who doesn't have an agenda. Evertsson himself says he had a particular narrative in mind, and explained (back in November 2020, IIRC) that this is why he didn't talk about the evidence that he discovered that didn't fit the narrative. So I'll take his word over yours.
 
Last edited:
Through experience you can tell when something isn't 'right' with your ship.
You can feel when something is wrong.
You might not know exactly what it is but you pick up subtle differences in the sounds, vibrations or motions.
 
It's weird how much of Vixen's narrative reads like superstition. He was a government minister, so of course he must be informed and competent and honest. He was in the navy, so of course he must be informed and competent and honest. He's a documentary film producer, so of course he must be informed and competent and honest. He's a naval architects, so of course... So much of it boils down to this blind faith in titles and credentials. Selective blind faith, of course.
 
Unfortunately merchant crews won't be able to deal with major flooding.
They are trained to evacuate the ship, their level of training varies and they probably haven't worked together in any kind of serious evacuation drill.
It pretty much comes down t every man for himself.
Back in the 'old days' a crew would be employed and trained by one company and everyone knew what they were doing. A good example being the sinking of the Andrea Doria in the 50s where the only casualties were from the initial collision.
 
theprestige said:
He's a documentary film producer, so of course he must be informed and competent and honest.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with Evertsson wanting to draw a conclusion or make a point or offer a narrative. But when one starts with the assumption that one investigation is biased and wrong, and that a subsequent investigation must be objective and neutral, and the evidence doesn't seem to support that distinction, then it's important to factor that into a weighing of credibility.
 
Vixen said:
Police are trained to be observant even under stress.

Why would you imagine an umble hengineer is more reliable than a police officer as a witness? 29 survivors all provided the same sequence of events. The junior trainee boatswain, Silver Linde was the JAIC star witness, changed his story more times than Jackanory, and was later jailed nine years for drug smuggling (which indicates he wasn't just selling weed on a street corner). So I think I prefer the testimony of random independent members of the public just going about their every day affairs with zero reason to tell porkie pies.

One crew member said the crew were threatened with dismissal if they uttered anything that could damage the reputation of the ferry line.
Click to expand...

Depends on which police you are talking about. Most are trained to observe in the execution of their duties, make-model-color-license plate of vehicle, color of clothes, height, weight, approximate age. They are not trained in making mechanical assessments in an environment they are not familiar with or trained to operate in or around...such as a large ship.

Nothing changes the fact that the bow-cover was torn off by big waves.
 
Employees of a company were directed not to embarrass their employer or expose the company to uneccessary liability?

That is in no way even barely remarkable, let alone evidence of some nefarious intent.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Police are trained to be observant even under stress.
...
Click to expand...
? Columbo? Do you make this up as you go, or did you read it, or watch a lot of Columbo?

"We" would not know how observant the police person in question is, until we take his/her statement, and get their testimony - "we" as a trained investigator. Did the police person see Bigfoot?
 
JayUtah said:
I have no problem with Evertsson wanting to draw a conclusion or make a point or offer a narrative. But when one starts with the assumption that one investigation is biased and wrong, and that a subsequent investigation must be objective and neutral, and the evidence doesn't seem to support that distinction, then it's important to factor that into a weighing of credibility.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't that the JAIC was biased or wrong, it just didn't consider anything other than 'it was the bow visor what done it'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom